[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1205288788.29875.28.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:26:28 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, nigel@...el.suspend2.net,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] kexec jump -v9
On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 23:18 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 of March 2008, Vivek Goyal wrote:
[...]
> > Rafael/Pavel, does the approach of doing hibernation using a separate
> > kernel holds promise?
>
> Well, what can I say?
>
> I haven't been a big fan of doing hibernation this way since the very beginning
> and I still have the same reservations. Namely, my opinion is that the
> hibernation-related problems we have are not just solvable this way. For one
> example, in order to stop using the freezer for suspend/hibernation we first
> need to revamp the suspending/resuming of devices (uder way) and the
> kexec-based approach doesn't help us here. I wouldn't like to start another
> discussion about it though.
Yes. We need to work on device drivers for all hibernation
implementations. And kexec-based hibernation provides a possible method
to avoid freezer after driver works done.
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists